Anna Raccoon Archives

Post navigation

The Right to Roam

The Anna Raccoon Archives

by Thaddeus J. Wilson on August 10, 2010

“They must have moved Snaefell again…”

I must confess that I often find myself feeling like a stranger in a strange land, and never more so that when confronted by the curious institution of “rambling”. As far as I can tell, this consists primarily of groups of well-equipped “townies”, who apparently feel it’s their “right” to wander across farmers’ crops on their way to some distant horizon.

As a man who is heavily predisposed to indolence and torpor, I find the idea of wandering across muddy ground fighting off midges and stinging nettles a curious concept for a pleasurable pastime. I’m a huge fan of the countryside, but I believe it is best enjoyed from the air-conditioned comfort of orthopaedically-designed seats, perhaps with some Mozart adding aural colour to the experience. However, to each his own, live and let live and all that.

But I can’t really fathom the central aspect of the ramblers’ creed — the idea that you are allowed to go wherever you want. I am naturally very careful about other people’s property, whether goods or land and I wouldn’t dream of trolling across some farmer’s cabbages unless I was in a really precarious situation. The concept of marching across someone’s pastures or fields with my head held high, “because it’s my right, innit?” is completely alien to me.

I have heard all sorts of (what are, to me, anyway) spurious justifications involving the Enclosure and ideas that seem to be grounded in nothing but ludicrous envy to me. I don’t generally see farmers traipsing through “towny” gardens of a weekend, nor do farmers appear to have any particular interest in trolling across their lands for “fun”. It seems a somewhat one-sided deal to me.

So I’d be pleased to hear a sensible justification for the idea that someone who has paid for exclusive use of a piece of land is not allowed exclusive use of that land.

{29 comments }

Peter MeliaAugust 11, 2010 at 21:49

Sorry to appear boring, but the original allegation (comment 6) was that William and his merry men half-inched the land from (implied) free Anglo Saxons. Daedalus Parrot has a kind response which includes “…researches also demonstrated how, in 1066, at the time of King Edward the confessor

Peter MeliaAugust 10, 2010 at 22:28

“Mostly this can be traced back to some Frenchman in 1066 subverting the Common Law by force, and plunging 90% of the population into servitude.”What exactly was the situation with land ownership in Anglo-Saxia before that Frenchman (Norman?) came to visit?

The writer/presenter is Dr Stephen Baxter who is a medieval historian from Kings College, London. He has been doing much research into the contents, background and processes involved in the Domesday book.

His documentary revealed that, before 1066, England was one of the most stable and prosperous states in Europe with a reliable currency, respected legal system and a well run state bureaucracy. His researches also demonstrated how, in 1066, at the time of King Edward the confessor’s death, English land was owned by a wide range of Anglo Saxon classes from rich earls to lowly, but free, farmers.

The Domesday inquisitors systematically recorded who owned all land in most of England in the two years of 1066 and 1086.

These records showed that the vast majority of English lands switched from Anglo-Saxon ownership in 1066 to Norman ownership at the time of the Domesday inquests in 1086.

Apparently there was widespread crookedneess and bullying by local Norman officials in most shires which resulted in the majority of Anglo Saxon landowners being robbed of the legal ownership of their land. Most Anglo-Saxons were turfed out or forced to work as dependent tenants for the new Norman “owner”.

Baxter’s narrative exhibits a subtle and justifiable outrage at the wholesale theft by the Norman usurpers. Again, unusual for the BBC, a programme that shows sympathy for the English.

RichardAugust 11, 2010 at 16:02

“before 1066, England was one of the most stable and prosperous states in Europe with a reliable currency, respected legal system and a well run state bureaucracy”

A lot has changed in 900 years.

sisterevalongoria69August 10, 2010 at 21:58

The last time some ramblers came round the convent claiming a right to roam the Abbess set her Rhodesian Ridgebacks on them, and when they ran for it gave then both barrels with her twelve bore shotgun.Sister Eva Longoria

Joe PublicAugust 10, 2010 at 20:54

I’m intrigued Thaddeus.

Do you stumble across an amusing piccie, & compose an article around it?

Or, do you write your piece, then hunt for a complementary photo?

Either way, they’re excellent matches!

wullieAugust 10, 2010 at 20:37

Sad really, when you think of it, in the last century thousands laid down their life in two world wars for their country, only to be told that it wasn’t theirs to wander around in by some poncy farmer landowner type.You know who can lay down their life the next time.

RichardAugust 11, 2010 at 15:59

Go on Wullie – how many people died for their country and then afterwards got shouted at for walking across a farmer’s field?

Be a bloody miracle, that would.

John77August 10, 2010 at 19:40

Rights of way are marked on Ordnance Survey maps and are frequently also marked by signposts and/or “Waymarks”.There is very little that you cannot see from following recognised footpaths and those who deliberately walk through crops are just vandals. Most ramblers do not: the large majority are law-abiding, sticking to the footpath unless they get hopelessly lost and it is wrong to tar them with the same brush as the “right to roam” fanatics – conversely, please debunk any claims by the vandals that they have the support of all ramblers or the Ramblers Association. [I am not a member of the RA because I cannot, in comfort, walk slowly enough]

faulksdAugust 10, 2010 at 13:32

Having spent many a happy hour tramping through the fields, valleys and hills of the Peak District, I appreciate the immense pleasure it brings and the vistas gained after sweating up a hill are rewarding. There are many townies who do the same – whatever their gear – simply because they love to get away from the madness of their urban existence – and I can’t say I blame them. For my part, I’m grateful that Wainwright and his contemporaries carried out the Mass Trespass on Kinder Scout in the 30s; it wasn’t some Marxist political point they were making against landowners – they simply wanted the right to see the beauty of their own country.

charlieAugust 10, 2010 at 13:11

Most of the land in Scotland was stolen at the point of a sword or given away by our betters in the 13th to 18th Century. Then it was fenced or walled off so that the rabble couldn’t access it.Then the rules changed. If someone wanted to take the land back he could no longer get a gang together and kill the owners and call himself the new laird.This would result in prison or hanging or deportation.The land Reform Act was introduced and ‘right to roam’has opened up ancient paths and countryside that was denied for centuries.

CatAugust 10, 2010 at 19:55

The waysome Landowners get round it now is by putting a gate up, marking it Private vehicle access only then quite often Walkers,Climbers et al have a couple of hours walk before they get to the Mountain/Munro/Hill – crafty …There is a Website called “Who Owns Scotland”……depressing reading.

Sarbanes OxleyAugust 10, 2010 at 11:10

That situation is IMO one where no-one should have the right to

Sarbanes OxleyAugust 10, 2010 at 11:07

I deeply resent the fact that Sarbanes has been able to buy land

This was twenty years ago when Lord **** had pissed another shed load of money at the Casino, and as a near neighbour asked if I wanted to buy some land. Creditors pressing y’know

In the contract of sale was clearly a bridlepath across my new parcel, with the obligation to maintain gates etc. That path was originally part of the highway from Warwick to London, a neighbour sliced through the highway which went through a deserted village (actually a land clearance for sheep- us English had this centuries before the Scots) with a wooden fence breaking a sixty mile ancient way. He was some nob head from the City, who pissed everybody off, and insisted on his agricultual subsidies, and wanted to be considered the Loard of the Manor. In the good old days we had pitchforks to deal with the likes of him. We had not forgotten the 1640′s

I have since sold said land, and bought land in France, were the rules are far more relaxed for all concerned.

Nick2August 10, 2010 at 10:56

Public access over _legally_ established rights of way – fair enough.Right of access to farmers’ land where they are in receipt of subsidies – arguable. Cooperation with the landowner/tenant is obviously the best option.

But what about roaming over land that is agricultural in nature (eg a field used for grazing/as a paddock) but is treated as an extension of a garden by property owners who do not actively farm or receive subsidies? That situation is IMO one where no-one should have the right to ‘roam’/trespass without permission.

GildasAugust 10, 2010 at 10:35

Rights of way are important ancient public rights and in my view should be preserved, but that is very much a different issue from the right to roam at will.A “smorgasbord” of opinion indeed!Gildas the Monk

backwoodsmanAugust 10, 2010 at 10:21

As always on Anna’s excellent board, we have the full range of opinions !As a fairly militant peasant, I deeply resent the fact that Sarbanes has been able to buy land , whilst I feel ever more disposessed by the white settlers pricing the locals out of the village.Like Jim I understand that the concept of the stewardship strip means that having everyone in the village exercise their dog there, means that the concept of field cover and a wildlife corridor will prove futile.Hankey should clearly bugger off whence he came, with the proviso that he is quite correct about the futility of giving CAP money to lowland farmers – it should all go to upland farmers to save the hills from further depopulation and habitat degradation.Oh, and that means the rest of you will have to pay more for your food, or take an interest in stopping Tesco et al from posing obscene profits .70 million people on an island with a capacity for 25 million, was always going to end in tears.

Spiral ArchitectAugust 10, 2010 at 09:58

Sarbanes Oxley – from where have you developed the term ‘contractual right’ in relation to ramblers?

JimAugust 10, 2010 at 09:45

@CountHankey: as a land owner of fields with similar margins I would say a couple of things: a) those field margins are there to encourage wildlife, which won’t be around so much if you (and loads of other people) are walking your dogs on it every day, and b) I could allow you permitted access onto my land, but then after a few years of that, if I wished (for whatever reason, it is my land after all) to stop you walking it, you’d probably get a bit p*ssed off. “I’ve been doing this for years, I’m not stopping now” etc etc.

I had a case just recently. A man who had been walking his dog over my land (no footpaths) for a number of years was asked to stop because I now have horse riders using the land (who pay for access) and they were worried about dogs running free and scaring their horses. He got very annoyed and basically said he would continue anyway, whatever I said.

And thats the problem. You give someone an inch and they take a mile. Or if you need to revoke the inch they cut up all p*ssy about it. Or you give permission to one person, and everyone else thinks they can do the same. So my experience is that its better to say no in the first instance, than court trouble down the line.

And landowners regard their land in just the same way as a householder regards their property. Its only a matter of scale. I get just as annoyed by the mess people leave in my gateways (fly tipping all sorts of crap) as you would if people chucked stuff over your garden fence.

Unfortunately in a small island of 60m people you cannot distinguish between the ‘nice’ people who are polite and respectful of the land, and the @rseh*les who treat it like a rubbish tip/sewer. So you have to try and reduce access to the bare legal minimum (footpaths etc) in order to protect your property and livelihood.

I agree with Sarbanes Oxley – my dogs and I are grateful for the access and fully respect the land owner, their crops and livestock.

However, our local pub is a mecca for townie ramblers and they are a hilarious sight. They arrive in groups of at least 10 and and piss the landlord off by ordering and paying individually, buying one sandwich each, asking for tap water before requesting for a group discount.

Quite why there is always one person in each group with the dual-ski pole walking stick arrangement I don’t know – particularly since the reason they are drawn to our area, is because there is a canal that winds it’s way through the country. Canal sides are, by necessity, flat.

Your local isnt the Boatyard is it? I’ve had many a group, just like you describe, in my pub days. They get so indignant when you charge them 25p for a glass of tap water.All paying individually and each one asking “What crisps have you got?”. Look at the f&%$ing display!

Sarbanes OxleyAugust 10, 2010 at 08:43

I went out with a militant rambler for a while, and she was forever traipsing across crops.

Well she had no respect for the land or the landowners livelihood, nor did she have any contractual right to do so. However if the landowner had been in receipt of X squillion of CAP money or set aside as was, walking the margins of the field should present no problem. In warwickshire, set aside land had to be on the margins and linked up, in neighbouring Northamptonshire, the farmers took the money and had the set aside in the middle of a field. Its call having you cake and eating it.

Sarbanes OxleyAugust 10, 2010 at 08:34

As somebody who indulges in this sort of activity either on foot or horseback, and as a land owner, let me give you an insight.

As a land owner I have bought land with ancient bridleways and footpaths across them. I knew that when I bought the land. It is part of the commonwealth. In buying the land I contracted to maintain the gates and footpaths/bridleways to ensure free passage. A huge amount of land owners buy land aware of their contractual obligations, then proceed to string barbed wire across bridlepaths (for many years when I rode everyday, I carried a pair of wire snips to deal with these situations) . This is akin to you hurtling round the M25 and being brought to a halt by a fence across the motorway by an adjacent landowner wanting to graze his sheep on the central reservation because it was ‘unused’ land.

The same landowners who indulge in this activity and shouting git orf my land, are the same ones queing up for agricultural subsidies. My view has always been the same no access no taxpayer subsidies, sunshine. Where there is a contracted access you stick to the contract.Pacta sunt servanda.

As to the mountains and rivers, my view is who the hell had the right to sell these in the first place. Mostly this can be traced back to some Frenchman in 1066 subverting the Common Law by force, and plunging 90% of the population into servitude. Mountains and uplands are marginal agriculturally and are only maintained by taxpayer subsidy, again no access no subsidy. Men have walked mountains since the time of Oetzi, they have fished the rivers.

We are about the only country in Europe who has this territorial instinct, my near neighbour has a thing that our shared access is ‘hers’ and gets very territoral about who drives across the common parts, who parks there on the basis that it is next to her house. Contractually it is not hers, she has no deed of ownership, but still considers that it is ‘hers’. You will find the Courts clogged every week with boundary and access disputes, with millions being spent in legal fees.

Largely I think it is because people are living like rats in a trap fighting for every square inch.

Saying that walking Snaefell is akin to walking across somebodies surbuban garden is a bit of a nonsense. Besides I want to see the orginal title for the sale of Snaefell, if it is in the name of some bloke called Guillaume the Barstard he can feck right off.

Have you considered asking Steve Gough? I hear he has some strong opinions on rambling.

Count HankeyAugust 10, 2010 at 08:08

I live on the edge of a village, I also have a dog which I like walking it helps me think and relax. Behind my house is a large field with a twenty foot wide grass strip, unproductive land. I’m not allowed to walk on this as it’s private land, so I have to use the country lane opposite, however from November to April, this lane becomes a quagmire of mud and shite thanks to farmers coming straight off the fields, so that rather then just getting wet walking on the grass, my dog and myself get coated in crap. As for walking through my garden, if the farmers taxes went to the upkeep of my property I’d say they had a right but they don’t, but they’re happy to take my taxes thanks to the CAP, I agree it is one-sided. As for walking through crops, the only people I’ve seen doing that are farmers and their friends when out shooting.

Thaddeus J. WilsonAugust 10, 2010 at 08:14

Ah, well, I went out with a militant rambler for a while, and she was forever traipsing across crops. She was of the opinion that a few people (like she and her fellow ramblers did) wandering through the fields did no harm at all.

Ted TreenAugust 10, 2010 at 15:08

Can’t really agree with your logic:- Your taxes will help pay for the upkeep of the households of those working in the public sector, and also of the properties of those in receipt of any state benefits.

I think that suggesting (even by extrapolation) that your paying taxes gives you right of access to and/or use of those properties is an even bigger quagmire than the one you describe…

toldyouso,August 11, 2010 at 07:14

I stopped people walking their dogs over my land as they gave my cattle a disease, (neospora canium) cost me 13 cows and calves,